Delhi Court Dismisses Louis Vuitton Trademark Infringement Suit Against Karol Bagh Traders

A Delhi court has recently dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton Malletier against two Karol Bagh traders over the alleged use of the company's trademarks on goods sold by them.

District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur of the Saket District Court passed the judgment on May 8, 2026, dismissing the suit against Manjeet Singh of Dashmesh Footwear and Kapil Kumar of Gaffar Market.

“Mere existence of plaintiff's trademark registrations does not automatically entitle plaintiff to decree against a person against whom no actionable involvement has been proved. The burden remained upon plaintiff to establish that present defendants were indulging in infringing activities", the court ruled

The suit was instituted in October 2017. Louis Vuitton claimed that the defendants were using the trademarks “LV” and “Louis Vuitton” in relation to goods without its authorization. A John Doe order was passed at the initial stage of the proceedings, following which a Local Commissioner visited the premises and the present defendants were impleaded.

With respect to Manjeet Singh, the court examined the Local Commissioner's report, which recorded that 15 pairs of shoes bearing the mark “Louis Vuiton Malletier” were seized from outside his shop. The report further recorded that Singh stated that the goods did not belong to him, claimed that they belonged to a customer named Rahul, and declined to take custody of them.

The court noted that Louis Vuitton had not produced any material to establish that the goods belonged to Singh.

“Thus, the LC report relied by the plaintiff itself demolished the very foundation of plaintiff case against the defendant Manjeet Singh.”, the court noted.

As regards Kapil Kumar, the court examined photographs annexed to the Local Commissioner's report and found that only one pair of shoes carried a mark similar to “LV”. The court also noted the presence of a leather purse that was not reflected in the inventory prepared by the commissioner.

The court found that the remaining shoes carried the logo “SO WHAT – IN YOUR MIND”.

“The said logo nowhere resembles even remotely to the trade mark claimed by the plaintiff.”, the court observed

The court further observed that the commissioner's report did not record that the defendant had been asked to produce a bill for the single pair of shoes carrying the logo claimed by the plaintiff.

Although the defendants were ultimately proceeded ex parte after failing to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, the court held that Louis Vuitton had failed to establish entitlement to relief of injunction, damages, or rendition of accounts against them.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit and directed the parties to bear their own costs.